Talk:Pashtunist
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
The creator of this page is an anti-Pashtun and a Tajik-Iranian-Persian ultra-nationalist who was banned in the English Wikipedia for attacking neighboring ethnic Pashtuns and making dozens of sockpuppets. w:User:Beh-nam was behind the "KhostiPakhtoon" name in 2008 (see w:User:KhostiPakhtoon and many other of his aliases at w:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Beh-nam). The ethnic Tajiks are a rival group to the ethnic Pashtuns so they try to find any way they can to attack Pashtuns. Also, there are no reliable sources that use "Pashtunist", it is a term similar as "Iranist" or other such used for humour purposes or to insult.--Officer (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, Google Books, Scholar, News and Groups all get hits for this. It's definitely rare. NB should actually be at WT:RFV. Also who originally created the entry doesn't matter, if there were anything off-topic and offense in the page history, we could hide it, but there isn't, so I simply propose to this nomination as of right now. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Can you provide a single reliable source please instead of mentioning Google Books, Scholar, News and Groups?--Officer (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- This is not Wikipedia; "reliable source" is not applicable here. [1] is just one of many hits (of which we need three) on Google Books that use the word Pashtunist. If it has been published or posted to Usenet, we do not question the source's reliability, merely that it used the word with that definition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Can you provide a single reliable source please instead of mentioning Google Books, Scholar, News and Groups?--Officer (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Mglovesfun. —RuakhTALK 13:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. There's nothing in the CFI saying "the creator of the entry must not be an ultra-nationalist", and I don't see any SOP. If you don't think it's used enough, you can WT:RFV it. (But is it really a proper noun?) Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 14:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Entry looks fine, citable, not even warranting a rare tag due to its attestability from Google Scholar, Books, and Groups, thought it is "uncommon", not appearing in any of the BYU corpora, including BNC. DCDuring TALK 14:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say it's rare or even very rare! There are probably only about 20 valid citations from those sources, less if multiple citations from the same Usenet group aren't acceptable (which would be my preference, by the way). Mglovesfun (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- If 20 were the standard, then we have a great deal of work to do to correct many entries. (BTW, would the standard only apply to lemmas or to inflected forms, too?) There is no such standard. DCDuring TALK 16:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, no numerical standard, but that alone doesn't seem like a reason not to use
{{rare}}or{{very|rare}}at editors' discretion. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, no numerical standard, but that alone doesn't seem like a reason not to use
- Keep. Entry looks fine, citable, not even warranting a rare tag due to its attestability from Google Scholar, Books, and Groups, thought it is "uncommon", not appearing in any of the BYU corpora, including BNC. DCDuring TALK 14:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Note: I've been looking through the hits, and while no one who uses the terms "Pashtunism" seems to bother to define it, I get the impression that some people mean something closer to "Pashtunwali" than to "Pashtun nationalism". But I'm not sure about that, and even if it's true, I'm not sure that the same need be true of "Pashtunist" (especially the noun "Pashtunist"; what would it mean for someone to be a Pashtunwali-an?). What do y'all think? —RuakhTALK 18:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: the word demonstrably exists (use RFV if you require citations); the given definition is not racist or offensive. Equinox ◑ 19:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Pashtuns are called Pashtuns, calling them anything else may be offensive, especially when it is non-Pashtuns who are using "Pashtunist". It is an incorrect term, at least the page should mention this.--Officer (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Your statement that "Pashtuns are called Pashtuns, calling them anything else may be offensive" seems irrelevant at best. No one is claiming that "Pashtunist" means "Pashtun". But anyway, if you can support the claim that it's "incorrect", that might justify a usage note. —RuakhTALK 06:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Pashtuns are called Pashtuns, calling them anything else may be offensive, especially when it is non-Pashtuns who are using "Pashtunist". It is an incorrect term, at least the page should mention this.--Officer (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Kept. Untagged by Mglovesfun (talk • contribs). — Ungoliant (Falai) 00:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)